Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee in November's presidential election, on Tuesday said she backed ending a procedural tool that currently requires a supermajority in the Senate to pass legislation to protect the right to an abortion nationally…
“‘We should eliminate the filibuster for Roe… to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom, and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body,’ she told Wisconsin Public Radio. Democrats removed the filibuster in 2013 on judicial nominees and Republicans went further in 2017 to include Supreme Court nominees.” Reuters
“Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, an independent who considered making a presidential run this year, said on Tuesday that he would not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris after she reiterated her support for eliminating the Senate filibuster to pass abortion rights legislation.” New York Times
The left generally supports eliminating the filibuster.
“Manchin reminded Democrats how little they will miss him by responding to Harris’s [statement] with a ludicrous tirade referring to the filibuster as ‘the holy grail of democracy.’ Pro-filibuster ultras like the West Virginian never mention that the Senate has already created multiple carve-outs for executive and judicial nominees, for Supreme Court nominees, and for budget legislation. Restricting the right to filibuster with respect to fundamental rights like bodily autonomy or voting doesn’t seem like much of a reach.”
Ed Kilgore, New York Magazine
“If a supermajority requirement to pass legislation were a crucial feature of democratic governments, all 50 state governments, not to mention virtually every foreign government we typically think of as democratic, would be nondemocratic. None of these governments decided to include a filibuster in their design. Indeed, the Founders also chose not to include a supermajority requirement in their legislative design…
“It evolved in the 19th century as a Senate rules tradition, first requiring unanimity, then a two-thirds supermajority, and later a 60 percent supermajority. During the first nearly two centuries of its use, the filibuster was employed as a rare weapon to signal extreme displeasure… It only became a routine supermajority requirement in the 1990s.”
Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine
Some argue, “In 2013, [Senate Democrats] moved to end the filibuster for lower court judges. The reasons for employing this ‘nuclear option’ were understandable…
“It also had predictable consequences. First, lowering the threshold for confirming judges dramatically changes the nature of these lifetime appointments. When their party also controls the Senate, it gives presidents the leeway — and therefore the incentive — to pick nominees near the extremes…
“[Second] Republicans then one-upped the 2013 Democratic maneuver and eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees as well, delivering to Trump the ability to confirm not only Gorsuch but also justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett… Democrats might favor abolishing the filibuster now. But what happens when they lose power?”
Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
“I no longer believe the fear of what the other side will do is keeping the parties from triggering the end of the filibuster. I think Democrats have concluded that if they have the chance, they will take it — come what may. The calculus, I think, is that Republicans would do it to them — so they should do it first. Get things like the right to an abortion into federal law and then dare Republicans to repeal it.”
Chris Cillizza, Substack
The right opposes eliminating the filibuster.
The right opposes eliminating the filibuster.
“Since the Obama administration, there has been mounting pressure on Democrats to do away with the filibuster from progressives frustrated with the limits the current system places on their ability to enact sweeping changes when in power. (When Republicans are in power, Democrats tend to embrace the filibuster, as Harris herself did in a 2017 letter.)…
“This announcement makes the ‘conservative case for Harris’ argument even more difficult to swallow. That argument rests on the premise that Harris will preserve norms and that Republicans will be able to block the most radical parts of her agenda in the Senate…
“But this news obliterates both of these premises. First, somebody who is running on nuking the filibuster should not be trusted as a guardian of norms. Second, if the filibuster is gone, Republicans would have little means by which to block the radical elements of her agenda.”
Philip Klein, National Review
“Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, recently said he wants to break the filibuster for a national abortion law and pass a bill that would impose California-style voting rules on all 50 states. Good-bye voter identification, and hello nationwide ballot harvesting. It won’t stop there. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says he wants to break the filibuster to restructure the Supreme Court…
“Every interest group in the Democratic coalition will demand that its priorities pass with 51 votes too. Think statehood for the District of Columbia. And think Big Labor’s PRO Act that would ban right-to-work laws nationwide, among other ideas that would normally require bipartisan majorities to pass the Senate… Once the 60-vote filibuster rule ends for one piece of non-budget legislation, it will end for everything.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“No matter who takes the White House or the Senate, the filibuster should remain to allow for extended debate. The procedure forces the majority party to listen to the minority party, and to back-bench members of its own party. The filibuster is a procedure, not a policy. It serves an important purpose to lengthen debate and to slow legislation in a way that forces the parties to compromise and come to agreement on controversial issues…
“The filibuster is fundamental to the identity of the Senate, and it would be a tragedy if it were eradicated. According to the Senate Historical Office, ‘George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to ‘cool’ House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.’… And if ever there was an issue meriting long, extended debate, it is the issue of federal abortion policy.”
Brian Darling, The Hill
